and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 19:06

1

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0%(00:00) correct
0%(00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution. Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight? (A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists. (B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time. (C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent. (D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist. (E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone.

Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 20:02

x97agarwal wrote:

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution. Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight? (A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists. (B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time. (C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent. (D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist. (E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone.

I would go A.

A: Art dealers falsify attributions -- i.e., traditional attributions may have been falsified in order to increase financial gains by greedy partiesB: This would weaken the argumentC: Doesn't say anything about traditional attributionD: Describes a consequence of attirbution, but this consequence does not tell us whether traditional attribution is a good or a bad thing.E: Weakens argument

Show Tags

Show Tags

09 Aug 2008, 18:08

x97agarwal wrote:

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?

(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists. -> this sounds favourable since this says art dealers are driven by economic interests and hence dont attribute the paintings to right artists and hence the attribution is false and hence no special weight

(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time. -> OOS we are talking about 200 years old paintings

(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent. -> this is irrelevant we are not bothered about how difficult attribution is

(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist. -> this apears close but says attributing to inferior artists makes the attributes bothers image of art masters but the attributes are decided by dealers hence depends upon them how good they are in judging the paintings.this is post impact.A wins.Its not always masters are good

(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone. -> OOS